Anderson Bulldog Is No More (Gibson Involved)

[squank]

As pissed as I was when they went after PRS I also sort of understand it, as I imagine they (PRS) sell high enough volume to actually make a small dent in Gibson's LP sales. But the Bulldog?? It looks far less like a Les Paul than many other copies from companies that I assume sell loads more!!

From a non-guitarist's eyes, the Bulldog looks like a close copy of a Les Paul. Remember, non guitar players focus more on the body shape, bridge appearance, and the knob layouts. And most judges are not guitarists. Thus, the Bulldog's shape will appear to be a trademark infringement.

PRS barely won their suit. They lost in the lower court (hence the temporary injunction and production halt), and won the case on appeal. A lot of the reason they won was because they convinced the appellate court that customers walking into a guitar store were unlikely to be confused between the two brands. They were able to do that largely because the standard PRS headstock, used on their Singlecuts, is dramatically different than Gibson's, even to the casual observer. TAG's headstock, while not a copy of Gibson's, is similar enough that TAG would probably lose this court case.

I'm bummed that Gibson did this, too, but Tom was very wise to avoid this fight.

 

[steve_k]

sucks. they went after TAG because they knew it would be an easy win and push out the small guy. to say they have a trademark on the shape is like say ford has a trademark on cars because it has 4 wheels.

 

[sg guy]

-why not just come up with there own design?.... If I want a LES PAUL,... I buy a GIBSON,

-if ya wanna party with the big dogs ya can't be pissin with the pups

-I would rather see something new!

-guess I'm crazy like that

 

[glassjaw7]

As pissed as I was when they went after PRS I also sort of understand it, as I imagine they (PRS) sell high enough volume to actually make a small dent in Gibson's LP sales. But the Bulldog?? It looks far less like a Les Paul than many other copies from companies that I assume sell loads more!!

From a non-guitarist's eyes, the Bulldog looks like a close copy of a Les Paul. Remember, non guitar players focus more on the body shape, bridge appearance, and the knob layouts. And most judges are not guitarists. Thus, the Bulldog's shape will appear to be a trademark infringement.

PRS barely won their suit. They lost in the lower court (hence the temporary injunction and production halt), and won the case on appeal. A lot of the reason they won was because they convinced the appellate court that customers walking into a guitar store were unlikely to be confused between the two brands. They were able to do that largely because the standard PRS headstock, used on their Singlecuts, is dramatically different than Gibson's, even to the casual observer. TAG's headstock, while not a copy of Gibson's, is similar enough that TAG would probably lose this court case.

I'm bummed that Gibson did this, too, but Tom was very wise to avoid this fight.

Yeah, very good points. Makes sense but still pisses me off.

sucks. they went after TAG because they knew it would be an easy win and push out the small guy. to say they have a trademark on the shape is like say ford has a trademark on cars because it has 4 wheels.

Awesome analogy, Steve!

 

[lespaul6]

Actually its a terrible analogy... the first production car was patented by Karl Benz and could be made by others only under license... they had to pay up to use his unique design. Gibson should license out their unique design as well, just like Floyd Rose- you cant make one like that unless you pay up.

 

[glassjaw7]

Well, it may be a bit broad and exaggerated but he's still somewhat right. I guess licensing out could make sense but it would have to be all or nothing, not to mention the degree of variation in some designs that aren't blatant copies.

A PRS singlecut is as different from a Les Paul as a Wilkinson is from a Floyd Rose. Unless it's a copy that's made to "be" a Les Paul like some small custom builders build from the ground up or a flat out copy (Chinese or whatever) I don't think it's license worthy. I do think there's a fine line between inspired by and flat out copy but someone who wants a Gibson will buy a Gibson. They have a model for every demographic and every price range.

Did Gibson have a singlecut ES model before the Fender Broadcaster? They should've sued Fender for the Broadcaster/tele shape! Okay, that one's a stretch

 

[santellavision1]

Just wanted to add. My Bulldog is amazing. I sold my 2 LP's after getting this custom order. Rosewood neck, killer top that almost looks 1 piece. Stunning in every way. And it doesn't sit around, I gig it all the time.

 

[baron55]

Big Companies will wait until the little guys start getting traction and the big companies perceive the little guys are starting to effect sales. The money it takes to start and win litigation is quite a bit so it it doesn't make sense for Gibson to go after little guys. But Anderson is a well known boutique brand of high quality guitars, so Gibson most likely sent him a cease and desist and Tom didn't want to take the chance of them following through. Because the legal battle would kill them financially.

About 10 years ago Mesa Boogie sent a Cease and de-sist to Marshall about Marshall infringing on a patent they held. Marshall's reply was something along the line of "bring it on we would love to see you in court and by the way we would also love to investigate some of your bogus patents to overturn" Mesa was never heard from again. Similar thing happened with Peavey. Marshall and Peavey were big enough that Mesa would have lost and also had their Patents overturned. Many US Patents and Trademarks can be overturned because the US patent office just doesn't have the resources to verify everything correctly. So if you have enough money and resources you usually can win.

That is why Gibson, Fender, etc go after the small guys, they know they can't put up a fight finacially.

 

[thiswaythatway]

Big Companies will wait until the little guys start getting traction and the big companies perceive the little guys are starting to effect sales. The money it takes to start and win litigation is quite a bit so it it doesn't make sense for Gibson to go after little guys. But Anderson is a well known boutique brand of high quality guitars, so Gibson most likely sent him a cease and desist and Tom didn't want to take the chance of them following through. Because the legal battle would kill them financially.

About 10 years ago Mesa Boogie sent a Cease and de-sist to Marshall about Marshall infringing on a patent they held. Marshall's reply was something along the line of "bring it on we would love to see you in court and by the way we would also love to investigate some of your bogus patents to overturn" Mesa was never heard from again. Similar thing happened with Peavey. Marshall and Peavey were big enough that Mesa would have lost and also had their Patents overturned. Many US Patents and Trademarks can be overturned because the US patent office just doesn't have the resources to verify everything correctly. So if you have enough money and resources you usually can win.

That is why Gibson, Fender, etc go after the small guys, they know they can't put up a fight finacially.

Wonder if it was that the JVM front panel was almost a copy of the Roadster/Roadking. Of course the amps are different but did Mesa try and stop Marshall from using the knob layout?

 

[Jeff Hilligan]

Gibson doesn't build or craft or design guitars. They sell guitars to hopefully be like guitars they used to BUILD before the mid 80's!

You want a Gibson that is built or crafted ....buy a Heritage!

 

[vultures]

I didn't see this thread last month, since it got bumped up today I was hoping it was an April Fools joke.

Tom Anderson is one I reallllly want to get a guitar built for. Shame they got rid of the bulldog, they had way more options and beauty than Gibsons offering these days.